Several prominent anti-Muslim voices on the right have reacted with characteristic vitriol to the elevation of a Muslim in the U.S. justice system, calling Mohammed “the enemy” and accusing Christie of turning New Jersey into a “Sharia State.” A sampling of their response:

– In a widely linked post, “Governor Christie’s Dirty Islamist Ties,” blogger Daniel Greenfield writes that “New Jersey, the Garden State, has just taken its first step toward becoming the Sharia State,” and criticized Christie for being “willing to stand up to the teacher’s union, but not to the terrorist’s union.“

– Hate blogger Pamela Gellar, in a post titled “Governor Christie’s Hamas Pick for Superior Judgeship,” declared Christie’s political career over: “Governor Christie looked and sounded like he could be presidential. He’s not. He’s in bed with the enemy. All the other stuff doesn’t matter if you don’t have your freedom.“

– At Commentary magazine, Jonathan S. Tobin wrote a post about Christie’s “troubling appointment,” and charged that Christie’s “appointment of Sohail Mohammed to the court shows that his judgment on the issue of support for terrorism is highly questionable.”

– The Investigative Project on Terrorism warned Christie’s appointment of an “Islamist” to a judgeship “betrays either naivete or calculation. Either is troubling.”

– PowerLine blog took extra pains to note that “The attorney’s name is Mohammed, first name Sohail — Sohail Mohammed.”

I know this doesn’t represent the attitude of everyone on the right, but the extent to which anti-Muslim bigotry like this is accepted and encouraged and given support is really rather disturbing.

As for Governor Christie, I don’t think he really cares what the Pamela Gellar’s of the world think, and I have a pretty good idea of what his response would be if someone asked him about this.

About Doug MataconisDoug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway.
Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

A true Muslim will never do harm to another Muslim. That includes criticizing them publicly and, in the case of a judge, subjecting them to punishment for crimes that are permitted under Islam, such as beating a wife.

A true Christian will never do harm to another Christian. That includes criticizing them publicly and, in the case of a judge, subjecting them to punishment for crimes that are permitted under Christianity, such as beating a child.

And again, Mr. Wolf says it exactly right. These people aren’t conservatives, they’re hate-mongering, frightened twerps who know how to stoke fear and hatred–and earn a few bucks doing it. As long as they make money, what’s the incentive to change?

In a different context, they’re just Nancy Grace, off their nut on a different topic.

And yet they are self-identified conservatives and Republicans as well. And of course the “good” conservatives are happy to profit from their votes. And they don’t really say much about the Limbaughs and Hannitys of conservatism who pander to these “not true” conservatives. These “not true” conservatives who are, what, a third of the GOP vote? At least?

Subtract these creatures from the GOP and you know what the GOP’s chances would be of winning elections? Zero.

Cut the crap: the GOP embraces people like this in order to win. Anything for a tax cut. But for their own self-respect the “true” conservatives have to make the right noises.

Well, that’s an unfortunate truth Michael. I can’t really argue with your point. But there’s no way I’d ever put people like this in the same category as Andrew Bacevich or William Ruckelshaus, men I personally consider to be “real” conservatives.

The reason these people aren’t conservatives is that they aren’t attempting to conserve anything. Their venom weakens our civil society, their hate drains our treasury via endless wars, and their nihilism weakens our democratic institutions.

Most of us are at least a little bit conservative. We want to preserve what we believe is good, and avoid actions we fear could lead to disaster. Unfortunately this sometimes means conservatives tolerate great injustice; the crusade for racial and sexual equality in the twentieth century was almost entirely the product of the left. Yet in working to preserve programs like Social Security and Medicare, liberals reveal their own form of conservatism, one which I believe our society needs.

But these people. What they have made clear is their belief that everything, EVERYTHING, deserves to be destroyed.

The problem is that conservatism, and its political expression the GOP, have become inseparable from these people. You know how many states the GOP could carry without the hater vote? None.

Republicans know this. So they take the money, and they take the votes, and they make little sotto voce quibbles but in the end they bow down to Limbaugh et al so that they can win. Setting aside electoral imperatives, can you explain to me why people like this are still accepted and in the case of Limbaugh lauded within a party that talks about principle?

I’m sorry but the tut-tutting isn’t enough. Not so long as Republican power rests squarely on these “untrue” conservatives.

Sarah Palin claimed she wanted “peace-seeking Muslims” to “refudiate” the Cordoba Initiative. At the time I was at a loss as to what sorts of Muslims she would consider peace-seeking if Imam Rauf wouldn’t do. To this group of bloggers, the answer is obvious: the only peaceful Muslim is a dead Muslim.

So a true Conservative would accept the nomination of a Israel hating, pro-Hamas, 9/11 terror attorney to the NJ Supreme Court? What is conservative about that? Where is the “radicalsim” in opposing this nomination?

Indeed, with the exception of Geller, I’ve never heard of any of those people. And we should have all known that Geller would freak out about it (she’s probably against doctors delivering Muslim babies).

the extent to which anti-Muslim bigotry like this is accepted and encouraged and given support is really rather disturbing.

With the Cordoba House, yes, it was definitely accepted and encouraged by major figures in the party. I’d hope that they don’t do the same for this, but I’ve pretty much lost all hope of the GOP taking a reasonable stance on anything.

And yet they are self-identified conservatives and Republicans as well. And of course the “good” conservatives are happy to profit from their votes

Replace “conservative” with “muslim”, and you’ll see the error in your statement.

Michael, I think conservatives are out there voting for Democrats. The truth is the so-called “real” conservative was only a small minority in the Republican Party, though it did provide moderation and intellectual heft. Now that concepts like critical thought, empiricism amd self-awareness have been purged we see the Republican core’s rotten heart, bitterness and nihilistic rage.

I’m only 33 and considered myself a conservative until the religious right and Bush Administration forced me to reconsider my political opinions. An uncomfortable process I can tell you.

There is nothing conservative about these people. They are reactionaries.

They also call themselves Americans and patriots. Do you accept those as representative, too?

When Democrats repudiate votes from Michael Moore and his ilk, then the Republicans can disavow people like this. If conservatives or Republicans have a responsibility to do more than “tut-tut”, I am sure there are more than enough crazies on your side to keep you busy. Undoubtedly, you would like nothing more than for the Republicans to spend every waking moment purging themselves of all elements that you find distasteful, and there is a time and place for purges, but every time an unknown wing-nut gets up and says something stupid, does the chairman of the GOP need to make a statement?

I realize it’s got to be tough to defend the delusional rants coming from you base. But as others have pointed out, without them you end up with, at best, 30 republican city councilmen nation wide.

Is it fair to the roughly 2/3rd’s of Republicans that are actually sane? No, it’s not. But since there would likely be no need for a chairman of the GOP without them, and since the GOP happily seeks them out, you’ll just have to learn to live with it.

I am sure there are more than enough crazies on your side to keep you busy.

There’s a big difference. We have crazies. The Republicans are crazies.

In the GOP it’s the rational ones who are the fringe. Doug and James are the fringe. They’ll go to CPAC and be surrounded by anti-Muslim bigots, anti-gay bigots, race-baiters, all the Limbaugh fans and Hannity-lovers and Palinistas and of course the people who just love to talk about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots. Doug and James aren’t any of those things, but they also aren’t the people with power in the GOP.

The fact that the only guy you can think of on the left is MIchael Moore is proof in itself. Is Moore a congressman? A Senator? Does he have a TV network?

And FYI, when my party fell under the sway of what felt to me like anti-American radicals, I cast my vote for Nixon. I prefer not to belong to organizations filled with people I’d never want to sit down and have a drink with.

[…] controversy surrounding a judicial appointment, at least among conservatives: Last week, the pundits on talk radio and in the conservative blogosphere were asking the same question posed by Augustine, a retiree from Cedar Grove. All were busy […]